It is common to hear the point made that “if evolution is true then there is no God.” I suggest this is a false assumption.
Argument from Design
Many Christians use the argument from design to “prove” God’s existence. This argument basically says that because life and this universe are complex and show evidence of design – there must have been a designer. Of course, people like Richard Dawkins are quick to point out that this is a self refuting argument, because by invoking God as a designer, One is assuming something more complex in order to explain something less complex. It simply moves the problem back one step.
Does this leave the person who believes in God with now answer and no evidence for God? Perhaps not. Let me say at the outset, I believe there is a God, and that He has used an evolutionary process to bring life as we know it. However, I do not base my belief in God on the intelligent design theory. There are three powerful arguments that tip the balance well in favor of the existence of God. These are evolution itself, the universal similarities between worship and the personal experience
The Problem of Beginnings
It is suggested that this universe is just over 13 billion years old, this means that, once life has begun, within the process of natural selection, there is potentially enough time for life to have developed, to what we now know. (That of course does not address the question of how life first began!) In addition to this, we don’t even know if this is the first or only universe. Our “13 billion years” may be the tail end of endless eons of time. Likewise, we cannot assume that the black hole/matter etc for the “Big bang”, out of which our universe arose, was the first, or only one present. It may well not have been, and to state that prior to that event there was nothing is rather bold. In fact, the big bang theory does nothing to address the question of real beginnings – it just assumes them. As we will note in a moment, even Richard Dawkins makes this mistake of assuming, and not explaining the existence of “laws” and “life” for a universe and an evolutionary process to build upon.
As Richard Dawkins himself points out, there are laws of physics in our universe. Yet, in spit of this recognition, he presents evolution as a closed system. Robert Stewart in the Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy has this to say about suggesting evolution is a fully adequate system to explain life:
“This is a very serious mistake, because it suggests that evolution is a self contained process. Dawkins and Dennett fail to mention that it took an incredibly complex and powerful set of natural laws governing the interactions between atoms and molecules in order for biological evolution to happen.”
The existence of such “laws” raises at least two issues. First, how did they come into being? Secondly, given their existence, is there no point at which these “laws” could either have given rise to, or in fact, at some point even be controlled by, an intelligent being? Or perhaps more pointedly, could such an entity predate our little universe and point in time? This is not an attempt to hark back to the argument from Intelligent Design, but simply to point out that whether one takes it back to “God”, or a to “powerful set of natural laws”, both fail to answer the question of how and why such can exist and out of what? It remains a question of beginnings!
If it Did Begin with Nothing
At this point, let’s assume for a moment, with the atheistic evolutionist, that this universe and life began through random chance. If a process of evolution can lead to this universe, the apparent consciousness, and design that we experience, why should we, or our world and universe for that matter, be the only thing to arise from such a process?
If we accept an evolutionary process, we cannot in fact rule out the possibility that something or someone more complex than we are could have also arisen. Such an entity could just as easily be more, or less, intricately “involved” with the processes of the universe, or universes, than we are. He, She, or It may even predate out universe or a million others. If a powerful set of natural laws can arise from nothing, only prejudice or arrogance would allow me to say a greater being cannot.
To put this another way. Humanity has risen to the awareness that “you are”, I am, and “we are”, through evolution. Through that process, we have now even reached a place where we seek to control that which is around us. We use our creativity and skill to manipulate a vast array of things around our life, our environment, and our world. In effect, if one believes there is no God, we are literally seeking to control that out of which by chance we came! My point? On what basis can we dictate that there has not arisen a being superior to ourselves, who also can control that out of which He, She or It came?
It is perhaps naive of us to exclude this possibility of a higher being inside or outside of this universe, when evolution itself points to the emergence of a (Human) being which seeks to control, with some success, that out of which it came.
This now reverses our dependence on the usual Christian argument that intelligence and design point to a God. We could now state it thus:
If chance and evolution through natural selection can bring life, design, and intelligence from the inanimate and chaotic – indeed from nothing – then we are a minute point on a continuum which may already have produced (Divine) life and intelligence far superior to our own.
The belief that evolution automatically deletes God is indeed a Myth. It is in fact the opposite. Evolution demonstrates the complex arising from the less complex, assumes a set of powerful laws can arise from nothing, and that galaxies and universes are the result. Indeed, according to the atheist, all this from nothing! It is only an arbitrary choice to conclude that we are the highest form of intelligence that has or could have arisen. It is equally arbitrary to assume there could not be a being so superior that we could in fact call She, He or It, God.
Of course the argument that because we have evolved, and therefore so could God, does not mean He/She or It has, and that is perhaps why we Christians liked the argument from design – it meant there had to be a God. However, evolution itself tells us it is entirely and completely possible. So why depend on a self refuting argument like intelligent design?
Now, someone may well point out that I am saying that God came out of nothing. Yes, if atheistic evolution were true, that is the case, because that is exactly the argument made by the atheist and evolution about You and me! However they cannot state that we came out of nothing, but that a more superior being cannot. To say so is the equivalent of a Homo Erectus looking around at his life and his world and, assuming he was sentient enough to do so, saying “i am the pinnacle of intelligence – there can be nothing greater”! What I am saying is that if we can come from nothing so can a being worthy of being called God.
This prods the issue to a new level: To the human way of thinking, every effect must have had a cause, and yet we are saying that all we see and what we are came from nothing. Of course, “nothing” will always look seriously inadequate to become a cause for anything, especially the complexity we see. Yet, if we deny the reality of a pre-existent God, there is no option left. This takes most of us full circle and we begin to seek Someone or Something pre-existent to explain it all! Thus we end up desiring the “intelligent design” theory again.
There are powerful arguments why out of nothing, nothing can come, but evolution has solved the problem for theists:
Theists, or progressive creationists, can have it both ways, for evolution has demonstrated that everything including God can arise from nothing. It only becomes a matter of whether or not He did and when, not that He cannot.
In the past eons of time somewhere, has there arisen some entity in a different dimension than ours? Perhaps even pre-existing our little galaxy? Or a billion others? Maybe in what we call the Spiritual dimension? Could this entity have played a role in the evolution of life as we know it on this material level? Are there signs that this may be so?
The Footprints of God?
What kind of God do we look for? We cannot say for sure, but perhaps in seeking the answer we should look for different “footprints” than we normally do when looking for the traditional God of many religions. Dawkins dismisses God by looking for the “footprints” that he believes should be present. When he fails to find them he calls the end to God, rather than challenging his own expectations. Perhaps Dawkins is driven by a profound dislike for religion and faith in God, and fails to be as scientifically objective as he claims to be. On the other hand, to be fair to Dawkins, Christians, and in particular fundamentalist Christians, may have presented an image of God that has encouraged a search for “footprints” that will never be found!
Hard Wired for Worship
Science is now discovering that we are “hard wired” for morality, just as we are hard wired for food. In reality, what are we not hard wired for? All our learning, development, and refinement still builds on the basic essence of what it is to be human.
Let’s take a closer look at some of this “hard wiring” and how it relates to our world. Humans enjoy a large range of foods, but our diet never resembles that of many of the animals. We might eat certain animals, but never eat what they eat. They have taken a very different developmental path and most have quite different tastes. What is the point of this? Which came first: the individual creature or his diet? The human or his diet? Well, they probably each developed together, but if push came to shove we would probably say the “diet” came first.
We can illustrate this principle from plants and their seeds. A tree which produces fruit around its seed does so for a reason – to attract a creature who likes that food. The purpose of this is not primarily to “feed” the creature, but to have the seed transported away to be dropped someplace else where it can grow. This is a symbiotic relationship, and the plants which have perfected the best methods of seed distribution, among other factors, are the ones which have survived. Even a prickle bush, which relies on a passing animal, or your sock, to “collect” its burrs, or a seed with a “parachute” to catch the wind, are examples of this basic rule:
What develops and exists as a hard wired trait or instinct reflects what is.
There are animals to eat fruit – There are trees with fruit. There are animals with fur – There are prickles to catch a ride. There are seeds with parachutes – There is wind to blow them.
Now, there are strong pointers that we may be hard wired for worship and response to a spiritual dimension. Notice this comment by Jonathon Haidt, himself an atheist:
“There must be some combination of evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and anthropological theories that can explain why human religious practices take the various forms that they do, many of which are so similar across cultures and eras.””Jonathon Haidt – The Edge
Perhaps there is, and to say that the current absence of an explanation “proves” God is to fall into the trap of a “God of the gaps” proof method. At the very least, every other human trait that has evolved has been shaped by external factors, which, when responded to, increased the chance of survival. Therefore, we are pretty safe to assume that this “hard wired” trait is also caused by an external factor or factors.
So, what factor has “hard wired” us to have such similar religious practices across different cultures and eras? An external factor? Most likely. Yes, we could try to explain it by some group survival factors, as opposed to individual survival skills, or by the common desire to avoid suffering and seek something better, but can these really carry weight when such needs could be met by any number of behaviors, thus making very unlikely the strong similarities across cultures and time?
The significance of the fact that there have been generations of people over bygone eras, and in different cultures, who all had religious practices with similarities cannot be overstated because to the degree that they were unconnected to one anther they provide independent confirmation of an external factor.
freethoughdebater.com has a powerful illustration of independent confirmation. While they use this illustration in another context, it is appropriate to our discussion here.
“… Independently confirmed predictions create a mutually reinforced “web” of confirmations that cannot be dismissed simply by casting doubt on any one confirming test. For example, when the prosecution in a courtroom presents not just one witness, but a parade of witnesses none of whom even know each other, each corroborating the same event from different, independent vantage points, they create a very powerful case. What makes it powerful is not just that the defense has to create reasonable doubt in more than one witness’ testimony. The burden on the defense is much bigger than this, much bigger than merely showing that each witness might be wrong. It is even bigger than showing that they are all wrong. The problem is making it reasonable to suppose that they all independently came up not just with a wrong answer, but with the same wrong answer—independently of each other. The odds of such event would be astronomically small.”
For our discussion the “parade of witness none of whom even know each other” is very similar to people groups and cultures across time, and the “same answer” is much like the similarities in religious practice across those cultures – independently of one another. As suggested in the illustration, the odds of such an event would be vanishingly small.
Clearly, just as with our food, plant, and prickle examples: If we are hard wired to worship we must raise the question why?.
Let’s just assume for a moment that this hard wiring to worship was a result of group survival factors. If it were to be explained as such – it would still leave a profound point: Religion is an important factor to the well being of the human and his society. Thus, even if there were no God – those who wish to demolish signs of His existence – religion and worship – do so at the peril of the well being of humanity.
This value of worship or religion to society is succinctly expressed by Jonathon Haidt further on in his article:
“…surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-live, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.”
It must be pointed out that this is not necessarily the case for fundamentalist religion, there is much evidence that fundamentalism does not create happiness or well-being. Just take a look at any militant religious or cultural group and that is self evident.
Where does this leave us? If we did explain away the universal desire to worship that exists in Humanity and “proved” there was no God, it would be a loss to humanity. Rather, even if there were no God, we would do well to foster a spirit of worship. However, I believe this is not the case as our hard wiring for worship points to the Divine.
Personal Experience
Personal experience takes the concept of being hard wired for worship to a focus on the inner aspect of this similarity. Throughout known history there has been and continues to be millions of people who claim to have experienced something on the spiritual dimension. As with worship, there are remarkable similarities across cultures and across time. Again this suggests an external influence at the very least. Yet, in spite of this there are people, like Dawkins, who experience nothing. Which experience is the true one?
I would suggest those who claim spiritual experience carry the most weight. I am going to borrow an illustration I read in C S Lewis many years ago. “Meditation in a Tools Shed” In it he describes going into his dusty, backyard tool shed. There, a small hole in the roof created a shaft of light through the dust. He makes the observation that one can either look “at” or “along” the shaft of light. The two outcomes are profoundly different. Looking along the light provides a far truer experience of the reality that shaft of light is telling about. I would suggest that unless a person has at least attempted to look along the light, they are unqualified to dictate about the validity of others spiritual experience and claims. Yet, how often do we hear belief in God dismissed by those who have perhaps only ever looked at the light, and not along the light? Can one ever find the footprints of God without looking along the light?
Dawkins, and many others look at the light, they refuse to look at anything beyond the rational and the scientific. They look for footprints of God in the universe, in the natural world, and for the miraculous – which they find impossible to discover. These are the wrong ways and the wrong places to look. The most discernible footprints of God are on the spiritual level, and to see that truth one must look along the light. It will never be found looking at the light. The clearest footprints of God are in our very being, in our spirit, pointing to the existence of God. Many of us, including Dawkins are looking in the wrong place. We look on the natural, physical level, but God walks quietly into our lives on a spiritual level and leaves his footprints on our hearts!
As we have seen, evolution itself offers the fact that if we can exist, so too can God. Universal similarities in worship provide powerful argument in favor that God indeed IS, and personal experience add even more weight to this assertion. Thus, the argument for God is powerful: the evidence for evolution and natural laws make God equally possible to our existence. The hard wiring for worship loads the dice in favor of God, and the similarity of experience of those who look along the light weights the argument heavily in God’s direction.
Hard Wired Footprints
* Spiritual awareness, worship and religious practice across all cultures.
* The recurring theme of experience with the Supernatural or Divine, again across all time, cultures and peoples.
* We are happier, healthier, and longer lived if we have God in our lives.
Seeds have fruit designed to eat, and parachutes designed to catch the wind. We are designed to eat, to love, to worship? Perhaps God is like the wind that catches the little seed – you cannot see the breeze, but the seed sure shows its there – we cannot see God – but the heart that listens knows God IS!
Whether we are peering through the smoke of a stone age campfire, as primitive people worship their God, or seeing through the smog of a modern metropolis as people leave their place of worship – perhaps there is more to the old saying: “Where there is smoke there is fire”. We could rephrase it: “Where there is worship – there is God”.
Note about miracles: This world and life as we know it has come to be or been brought to be through natural processes, and it is not normal for God to interfere with those processes. As I discuss on my page, The “Theistic Evolution Deletes The Gospel” Myth, God is Spirit, we are spirit, and it is on that level we find God. Jesus himself was frustrated with the leaders of his day seeking a miracle to confirm his identity. Instead Jesus seemed to suggest that it was the personal spiritual level that mattered.
Copyright: oldearthmygod.com 1. 01. 2011
Site Menu :